District by District School Funding Numbers

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/plunderbund/webapps/bw/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/plunderbund/webapps/bw/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/plunderbund/webapps/bw/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/plunderbund/webapps/bw/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/plunderbund/webapps/bw/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1243

The district by district school funding tables are now available on OBM’s website. These charts allow you to see how individual districts do in the budget, sorted either by county or property value.

Keep in mind, the numbers shown here are misleading and do not tell the full story of funding for schools. They also paint the administration’s plan for schools in the best possible light. What these numbers compare are only three sources of funds for districts – state foundation funding, lottery proceeds and transportation subsidies to the districts for FY12 and 13 compared to the current fiscal year. Not shown here are the $3.1 billion in reductions that school districts will experience as a result of the loss of federal stimulus money, or the redirection of tax revenue that normally flows to school districts to the state coffers.

We are waiting to hear back from our school funding expert friends and will report back if we hear anything interesting, but some initial take-aways:

While we’ve been reassured by the administration is that those districts who are most reliant on the Tangible Personal Property Tax replacement revenue will see the smalled impact from its planned phase-out, but none of that is shown here. We have to take their word for it until they produce district runs that include the missing stimulus and TPP replacement money, which the House Finance Committee members asked for last week.

It looks like some property-poor districts see a small increase the first year but have that more than wiped out in the 2nd. A good example is Trimble SD, which sees a 1.7% increase in FY12 but a 4.7% decrease in FY13. It remains to be explained why there is such variation between the two years of the biennium.

There is something similarly weird going on with the rich districts. Looking at the spreadsheet that is sorted by property value, toward the end (before the JVSD, which are a different animal) you see the Olentangy-Liberty and Upper Arlingtons. Many see huge cuts in the first year, only to then swing dramatically the other way in the 2nd. For example, Westlake City SD experiences a 71.9% decrease in FY12 followed by a 77.6% increase in FY13.

Some wealthy districts (Cuyahoga Heights, Kelley’s Island, etc) lose all state funding in this budget. Most were already receiving very little to begin with, but it will be interesting to see if these districts now argue that they should no longer be required to follow any state mandates as they no longer receive state funding.